For anyone who has seen the movie Braveheart

Question

I just bought the DVD about a week ago, and on disc 2 there's a historical document about the legend of William Wallace some myths say he was a hero to Scotland the biggest hero of his time, and others say he was a traitor. And according to it the movie is totally myths or it is half true. Can you please help me as i'am researching him?

P.S. Best answer to anyone who might know if he has any living descendants/relatives.

Answer 1

i would focus your research on other, more reliable sources than the movie. i'm not as familiar with his story but i've no doubt that much the movie is a glorified tall-tale.

obviously you could use wikipedia or the history channel websites as good starting points---but you might also search the library of your local university to see what books or articles might pop up.

good luck!  

Answer 2

BraveHeart while a good movie has a lot of historical inaccuracies.A really good book to read about Wallace is called" William Wallace The Kings Enemy" by D.J Gray. Hope that helps.

Answer 3

Some of the visual inaccuracies:

They did not wear kilts back then.

They did not paint themselves blue.

They did not glue arrow heads to their arm bands.

They did use proper pikes, not cut down trees, against cavalry.

Wallace did not sleep with the king's wife.

They did not make timber "castles" with two-foot gaps in the logs so somebody could simply squeeze through.

Except that there was a guy named Wallace, there was a King named longshanks, and a guy named The Bruce and there was a rebellion, The History was ALL wrong which is a shame, b/c the real story was gripping enough that it did not need to become a Roy Rogers fairy tale.  

Gibson did the same in the Patriot, often called "Lethal Musket", which was visually spectacular but not very close to History.

Hollywood often gets the history wrong to tell a 'better' story.

Answer 4

The film is mostly based on the mythical figure created by Blind Harry and so should not really be taken all that seriously.

As a result of Blind Harry being rather swayed by the ideas of his political masters Wallace's legend was enlarged at the expense of others, most notably Andrew de Moray who was arguably the true brains behind the revolution, cirtainly Wallace never had as much sucess after de Moray died as he did before.

In fact some of de Moray's act were attributed to Wallace, such at the attack on the Port at Aberdeen where, according to Blind Harry, Wallace burned all the ships in the port but in reality there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Wallace ever attacked Aberdeen at all but strong evidence to support de Moray's presence there.

In many ways de Moray was just as great a Hero as Wallace was, if not more so considering that Wallace began his rebellion against the English with two murders of personal enemies while de Moray escaped from imprisonment at Chester Castle and went back to his families land where he struck out against the English there in fury over his imprisonment, his fathers inprisonment and English occupation.

Answer 5

he was a hero for scotland and fought edward longshanks - he was eventually betrayed by some fellow scotsmen for lands promised them - when he was executed his loins were stretched and broken and each of his four loins was taken to a corner of england as a warning to any future rebels

Answer 6

See some facts below.

Answer 7

He was actually of noble birth and not just commoner landowner. Which by the way if you were a commoner WITH land,that was a pretty good feat back in those times. But it was true his uncle paid to have him educated because he knew it would be necessary for him later on in life.

In real life,the Princess of Wales would have been nine years old in Wallace's time and they would never had a romance together. But her son DID overthrow Edward II and become Edward III.

Also during the first battle,common courtesy would have allowed the British to assemble their troops on the battlefield,but there was a narrow bridge they had to cross to get to the field,and this is when Wallace bypassed courtesy and attacked while they were busy crossing. THAT was how he won his first battle.

And yes,he does have living descendants today.

Answer 8

Hero or traitor is based on who tells the story, Longshanks was portrayed as an evil king, but he was one of England's best, The Bruce's role was played down, but in fact he was a great hero in Scotland.  

Answer 9

The movie Braveheart is real, all the major facts are on.  England conquered Scotland in 1296.  In 1297, Wallace began his "rising" with the murder of an English sheriff.  Eventually, he was betrayed by Robert the Bruce who later regreted it, and in 1305, he was given a trial (although it wasn't required by English law) in order to destroy his reputation.  He was stretched, but he was wrapped in ox hide to prevent his limbs from tearing.  He was then hung but cut down while still alive, and finally disemboweled and mutilated (all of which is in the movie).  He went down as a hero and martyr among the Scotsmen.  However, the chroniclers of  Medieval history were all English monks.  So, they recorded him as a traitor and murderous thief.      

As far as Wallace's descendants, I included a link that can tell you what is basically known.  Unfortunately, due to how long ago it was (killed in 1305) and the fact that he wasn't revered as a hero right away (not until after independence at the least)...there is little authenticating evidence to support what they know.  Most of it is based on oral tradition, but it is considered reliable.  I hope this helps.